On Tuesday 14 September 2010 08:26:23 Dave Neary wrote: > I agree - MeeGo Extras should be a repository of compliant applications. > And a compliant application, in this context, should be an application > which uses only MeeGo core APIs or MeeGo compliant libraries distributed > in Extras.
I am a strong supporter of the Extras concept but, after reading this thread (I have been away) I believe we do not need the term "MeeGo compliant" to apply to Extras. What we *do* need is to be able to use the MeeGo name, in a separate brand for Extras. I think "MeeGo Extras" can be that brand. The MeeGo trademark usage rules should be extended to say that any package can claim to be a "MeeGo Extra" if and only if it has been accepted into the MeeGo community Extras repository. And one of the conditions for acceptance need to be that it depends only on MeeGo core repositories or other MeeGo Extra packages. My day job is marketing, and I think that if the mark is properly protected, we (the community) can make "MeeGo Extra" a recognised and valuable term. This does not solve the problem of how vendors encourage open source developers to create and make available apps which depend not only on MeeGo core but on the vendor additions (and also on each other). Any app built for a vendor-specific GUI will have dependencies on packages in neither MeeGo core nor in MeeGo Extras so can't use the MeeGo name. But that is the vendor's problem (and Nokia will need to solve it for Ovi if they want the equivalent of the GPE apps, say, to be made available for their Nokia-specific GUI environment). Graham _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
